Is college aid process biased against prudent savers?

[Anonymous]

the correlation to your complaint, OP, is that having the ability to pay full freight might actually improve your child's chances of admission.

[Anonymous]

To restate the question: is the process for need-based scholarships "biased" against those who don't need scholarships? Um, yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the correlation to your complaint, OP, is that having the ability to pay full freight might actually improve your child's chances of admission.

Is there any truth to this in fact? It seems logical and I see it mentioned lots on DCUM but I don't see it in real life. For my DC, our ability to pay seems greater than their chances of being accepted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the correlation to your complaint, OP, is that having the ability to pay full freight might actually improve your child's chances of admission.

Is there any truth to this in fact? It seems logical and I see it mentioned lots on DCUM but I don't see it in real life. For my DC, our ability to pay seems greater than their chances of being accepted.

of course it is true. even with aid some kids cannot afford certain schools or another school's aid package is more attractive or something. so, it's more likely to be a slot to open up for someone who can afford it.

[Anonymous]

I am very proud that I am able to save for my child's college education. What happened to being proud of providing for your child?

My own parents didn't save in advance but managed to get three of us through (one with a required MA) with no loans. This is a huge point of pride for my father, especially. Yes, 2 of us went public, only one was private. The one who went to private was subsidized by a huge real estate gain windfall my parents had at the time.

The other two of us went public and pieced together scholarships to help my parents pay. Some as low as $500.

We all worked jobs the whole time as well.

My point being I always knew people on need based aid and always felt like they actually needed it vs. me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the correlation to your complaint, OP, is that having the ability to pay full freight might actually improve your child's chances of admission.

Is there any truth to this in fact? It seems logical and I see it mentioned lots on DCUM but I don't see it in real life. For my DC, our ability to pay seems greater than their chances of being accepted.

of course it is true. even with aid some kids cannot afford certain schools or another school's aid package is more attractive or something. so, it's more likely to be a slot to open up for someone who can afford it.

Yeah, I meant any truth beyond what you say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the correlation to your complaint, OP, is that having the ability to pay full freight might actually improve your child's chances of admission.

Is there any truth to this in fact? It seems logical and I see it mentioned lots on DCUM but I don't see it in real life. For my DC, our ability to pay seems greater than their chances of being accepted.

of course it is true. even with aid some kids cannot afford certain schools or another school's aid package is more attractive or something. so, it's more likely to be a slot to open up for someone who can afford it.

Yeah, I meant any truth beyond what you say?

NP here. If you can pay full freight, then your kid can apply early decision to his/her top choice school with no worries. Many colleges take a much higher percentage of early decision applicants than regular applicants, because they know the ED applicants are really committed to the college, and also because ED is in fact binding and this will boost a college's matriculation stats. (Note there are also admissions routes called Early Action and Single Choice Early Action, neither of which provide as much of an admissions bump.)

Anyway, if you need financial aid, ED is risky because you can only apply to one college ED at a time, and then you are bound to attend if they accept you. As consequence, you are stuck with their FA package, no matter how paltry or unappealing (for example, mostly loans) the FA package they offer. Moreover, it's better to be in a position where you can compare FA offers from several colleges, but you'll get the ED offer in December from many of the more selective colleges and you're bound to accept by early January or so, so basically the only offers you'll be able to compare are with the ED package and a few colleges that have Early Action and will have notified you in time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am very proud that I am able to save for my child's college education. What happened to being proud of providing for your child?

My own parents didn't save in advance but managed to get three of us through (one with a required MA) with no loans. This is a huge point of pride for my father, especially. Yes, 2 of us went public, only one was private. The one who went to private was subsidized by a huge real estate gain windfall my parents had at the time.

The other two of us went public and pieced together scholarships to help my parents pay. Some as low as $500.

We all worked jobs the whole time as well.

My point being I always knew people on need based aid and always felt like they actually needed it vs. me.

I so agree with this. My parents felt the same way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To restate the question: is the process for need-based scholarships "biased" against those who don't need scholarships? Um, yes.

Nice!

[Anonymous]

Ha,ha,ha. Good one. And it says it all.

[Anonymous]

I think OP's point is that people who could pay tuition are not always saving for college and thus, getting aid, while those who perhaps have similar or less earnings but save are not receiving aid, which might lead some to concur it is counter intuitive to live frugally and save.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think OP's point is that people who could pay tuition are not always saving for college and thus, getting aid, while those who perhaps have similar or less earnings but save are not receiving aid, which might lead some to concur it is counter intuitive to live frugally and save.

I agree that, as long as the FA formula counts your savings as being available for college, people who save will be deemed to need less FA. On the other hand, if you are full-pay, then your kid will have a better shot at the ED colleges, as I wrote about above.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]I think OP's point is that people who could pay tuition are not always saving for college and thus, getting aid, while those who perhaps have similar or less earnings but save are not receiving aid, which might lead some to concur it is counter intuitive to live frugally and save. [/quote]

NP here... Yes but - as has been pointed it earlier - most aid is in the form of loans. Not saving doesn't get a lower middle class student or better a free ride, it just shifts the responsibility from parent to student.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I think OP's point is that people who could pay tuition are not always saving for college and thus, getting aid, while those who perhaps have similar or less earnings but save are not receiving aid, which might lead some to concur it is counter intuitive to live frugally and save. [/quote]

NP here... Yes but - as has been pointed it earlier - most aid is in the form of loans. Not saving doesn't get a lower middle class student or better a free ride, it just shifts the responsibility from parent to student. [/quote]

16:53 here again. Good point. Unless your family is really low income (under $50,000) or your kid gets into one of the very few colleges with endowments large enough to give substantial grant aid up the income scale (like Harvard), your own failure to save means that your kid will be awarded a big package of student loans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think OP's point is that people who could pay tuition are not always saving for college and thus, getting aid, while those who perhaps have similar or less earnings but save are not receiving aid, which might lead some to concur it is counter intuitive to live frugally and save.

Yes, but this can easily unwind into an argument against need-based loans. "I sacrificed nights and weekends to make more money, and I'm being punished for not taking a job teaching HS English!" "If I'd have partied more in college, I'd have a lower paying job and my kids would have more aid! But I told myself those f*&kers would be sorry later!!!"

Any program that gives those with less a leg up can be seen as "biased" against people who do what they're "supposed" to do.

Personally, I get over the unfairness by reminding myself my son's education finance isn't based on the caprice of the Dean of Financial Aid, and I'll take that trade every day and twice on Sunday.